Introduction
After two decades of research on pedagogical agents in multimedia environments, meta-analyses and reviews provide evidence that agent presence is beneficial for learning outcomes (Davis
2018; Schroeder et al.
2013; Wang et al.
2017). However, the physical presence of the agent must also provide social cues found in human-to-human communications.
Social agency theory, one of the early theories examining social cues, suggested that the image and voice activate social interaction schemas which allow for deeper cognitive processing by the users (Mayer et al.
2003). While early research focused more on how voice (human vs. computer) impacted agent perception and learning, later research began to explore the social cuing of the agent’s image. Mayer and Dapra (
2012) examined the nonverbal communicative aspects of an agent with the
embodiment principle, which proposes that agents that exhibit more human-like characteristics, such as eye-gaze, facial expressions, body sway, and gestures, help users learn more deeply when compared to conditions without embodiment. During the course of three experiments, the authors found that agents exhibiting high embodiment, the use of the aforementioned nonverbal cues, significantly improved agent perception and the transfer of learning when measured against agents with no (low) embodiment features. However, the concept of high embodiment still requires further development as certain embodiment features have minimally addressed the potential of nonverbal cueing capabilities. For example, a meta-analysis on agent gesturing supported the embodiment principle by finding significantly higher agent persona and learning outcomes (retention and near transfer) than conditions without embodiment (Davis
2018), but one of the limitations of the analysis was that all agents used deictic (pointing) gestures. This limitation might be significant in terms of high embodiment and activating social schema because it is only one of the four potential gesture types people use to nonverbally convey information when communicating. Recent studies exploring gestures have indicated that multiple gesture types can be helpful for certain persona subscales, but learning outcomes can be more complicated (Davis and Antonenko
2017; Davis and Vincent
2019). One aspect that is gaining more attention, and might play an important role, is the type of information that is being learned. Davis and Antonenko (
2017) found no significant differences with gestures when Korean fifth- and sixth-grade students learned English grammar. However, Korean university students learning procedural knowledge in the scientific domain indicated that gestures and frequency could assist with higher learning outcomes (Davis and Vincent
2019). Another study that did not use gestures, but examined an agent’s assistance with learning declarative knowledge, indicated that an agent using eye gaze helped students learn more declarative knowledge (Fountoukidou et al.
2019). Therefore, the type of knowledge domain might be an important component to learning outcomes with embodied agents. The purpose of this study is to examine how gesture frequency (enhanced vs. average vs. no) affects agent persona and the learning outcomes of cued recall and recognition with declarative knowledge with advanced university foreign language users.
Instruments
Demographic data
Participants were required to answer demographic data questions to establish their international age (Koreans use a different system), gender, year in university, native language, major, and whether they had lived in or visited Australia for an extended period of time. Those who had lived or spent more than six months in Australia were removed from the pool. Also, participants were asked to contact the monitor and abort the experiment if they had previously participated in this research. Since this research topic has primarily been conducted in America, and this was the first time using this content in South Korea, there were no instances of participants having previous exposure this research topic. The data was used to assess whether any significant demographic items influenced the results.
Prior knowledge test
Previous experiments which utilized this content did not have a prior knowledge test, since American students were deemed to not have significant knowledge to affect the results due to geographical distance. However, since Australia study abroad programs are well known in Korea, establishing the degree of prior knowledge was a necessity for this research. Before watching the video on Australia, participants were asked to rate their prior knowledge of Australia’s history, geography, and wildlife on a five-point Likert scale with (1) being “very little” and (5) being “very much.” General questions such as, “How much knowledge do you have about Australia’s wildlife,” were asked to avoid any testing effect scenarios. Prior knowledge scores were assessed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to evaluate whether there were any significant differences between conditions. The results indicated there were no significant differences between conditions (F (2. 151) = 1.272, p = 0.283).
Agent persona
Since gestures have been shown to increase the perception of agent persona, this experiment seeks to test whether gesture frequency impacts the learner’s perception of the agent. The agent persona instrument revised (API-R; Schroeder et al.
2018) was used to evaluate agent persona. The API-R consists of 25 Likert scale questions ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) within the four subscales of facilitation (α = 0.94), credibility (α = 0.81), human-likeness (α = 0.80), and engagement (α = 0.87). The facilitation subscale consists of 10 questions, while credibility, human-likeness, and engagement each contain five questions.
Cued recall test
Before participants could answer multiple-choice recognition questions, they responded to two cued recall questions from each of the ten topics covered in the presentation. Following are two sample questions: (1) How is the rabbit disease myxomatosis transmitted? and (2) What relatively harmless reptile inhabits the coastal wetlands? Answers were evaluated by two independent raters. Each correct answer was worth one point. Cohen’s Kappa was used to measure inter-rater reliability using SPSS 25. The results showed that the two raters had substantial agreement with a reliability score of
k = 0.69 (Cohen
1960). Disagreements in scoring were reconciled by discussions between the two raters.
Recognition test
Immediately after finishing the cued recall section, participants took a multiple choice recognition test. Each correct answer was worth one point. An example question is: “What techniques have anthropologists used to determine the time the aborigines came to Australia?” The internal consistency was measured at alpha = 0.70, which is considered acceptable. See Table
1 for descriptive statistics for all measures.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for agent persona subscales, recognition, and cued recall
Facilitation | 29.06 | 8.35 | 27.55 | 8.00 | 20.35 | 7.81 |
Credibility | 17.00 | 3.45 | 16.45 | 3.92 | 13.84 | 3.81 |
Human-likeness | 12.19 | 4.02 | 12.12 | 3.37 | 8.84 | 3.23 |
Engagement | 13.46 | 4.09 | 13.10 | 4.17 | 9.33 | 3.26 |
Recognition | 10.06 | 3.87 | 8.59 | 3.84 | 8.45 | 3.22 |
Cued Recall | 3.73 | 3.30 | 2.55 | 3.15 | 2.41 | 2.55 |
Estimation approach
In the experiment, the dependent variables of persona, cued recall, and recognition were measured with multiple correlated items for each participant. Moreover, independent variables and control variables used in the model are all time invariant variables, which cannot be estimated in fixed effect models. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups or the control group, thus unobserved individual heterogeneities do not exist in model estimation. As a result, a random-effect linear regression model was employed to evaluate the persona of the agent, and a random-effect logit regression model was used to evaluate cued recall and recognition.
Persona was measured according to the subscales of facilitation, credibility, human-likeness, and engagement. The random-effect linear regression model is used to evaluate each subscale respectively. Specifically, the estimated model for agent persona was:
$$Persona \, subscale_{ij} = \alpha + \beta \times Gesture_{i} + \zeta \times X_{i} + \theta_{i} + \varepsilon_{ij}$$
\(Persona \, subscale_{ij}\) measured the participant’s evaluation of the agent for each of the persona subscales. Each dimension was measured with multiple questions, where i represents participant, j denotes question. \(Gesture_{i}\) was a set of dummy variables which indicated whether participant i watched a video with enhanced gestures, average gestures, or no-gestures. \(X_{i}\) was a set of control variables for participant-specific characteristics, such as age, school year, gender, English major (whether English is the primary or secondary major), and prior knowledge about Australia's history, geography, and wildlife. \(\theta_{i}\) was the participant-specific random effect, and \(\varepsilon_{ij}\) is the error term.
Cued recall and recognition were measured via multiple questions with binary codes. A random-effect logistic regression model was used to estimate the likelihood of recall or recognition separately for each participant.
$$Recall\left( {or Recognition} \right) likelihood_{ij} = \frac{{{\text{e}}^{{\alpha + \beta \times Gesture_{i} + \zeta \times X_{i} + \theta_{i} + \varepsilon_{ij} }} }}{{1 + {\text{e}}^{{\alpha + \beta \times Gesture_{i} + \zeta \times X_{i} + \theta_{i} + \varepsilon_{ij} }} }}$$
where i represents each participant, j denotes each recall or recognition question, \(Recall\left( {or{ }Recognition} \right) likelihood_{ij}\) represents the probability of the recall or recognition of participant i for question j. Other variables used in the model are the same as for the aforementioned linear regression model used to estimate persona.
Results
Table
2 presents results for each subscale of agent persona (facilitation, credibility, human-likeness, engagement). There were three gesture conditions (enhanced, average, and no-gesture) in which to compare differences. The enhanced and average gesture conditions were used as the base conditions respectively. Models (1), (3), (5), and (7) are regression results which used enhanced gestures as a base condition, and models (2), (4), (6), and (8) are average gestures as a base condition. From models (1) to (8), the evaluation of the no-gesture condition was significantly lower than the enhanced gesture and average gesture conditions for all of the agent persona subscales. However, there are no significant differences between the average gesture and enhanced gesture conditions. Specifically, the evaluation of facilitation for the no-gesture condition was 0.832 (p < 0.01) points lower than the enhanced gesture condition, and 0.693 (p < 0.01) points lower than the average gesture condition. For credibility, the evaluation of the no-gesture condition was 0.626 (p < 0.01) points lower than the enhanced gesture condition and 0.539 (p < 0.01) points lower than the average gesture condition. Similarly, in human-likeness, the no-gesture condition was 0.731 (p < 0.01) points lower than the enhanced gesture condition and 0.698 (p < 0.01) points lower than the average gesture condition. Finally, in engagement, the no-gesture condition was 0.835 (p < 0.01) points less than the enhanced gesture condition and 0.779 (p < 0.01) points less than the average gesture condition. Using gestures together to explain the content in the video resulted in higher evaluations for agent persona. While the enhanced gesture condition performed better than the average gesture condition, the difference was not significant.
Table 2
Regression results for agent persona
Enhanced gesture | | 0.140 (0.158) | | 0.087 (0.147) | | 0.033 (0.137) | | 0.056 (0.151) |
Average gesture | − 0.140 (0.158) | | − 0.087 (0.147) | | − 0.033 (0.137) | | − 0.056 (0.151) | |
No gesture | − 0.832** (0.159) | − 0.693** (0.159) | − 0.626** (0.148) | − 0.539** (0.149) | − 0.731** (0.138) | − 0.698** (0.138) | − 0.835** (0.152) | − 0.779** (0.153) |
Age | − 0.029 (0.029) | − 0.029 (0.029) | − 0.045 (0.027) | − 0.045 (0.027) | 0.017 (0.025) | 0.017 (0.025) | − 0.013 (0.028) | − 0.013 (0.028) |
Year | − 0.097 (0.068) | − 0.097 (0.068) | − 0.041 (0.063) | − 0.041 (0.063) | − 0.135* (0.059) | − 0.135* (0.059) | − 0.118 (0.065) | − 0.118 (0.065) |
Gender | − 0.122 (0.149) | − 0.122 (0.149) | − 0.005 (0.138) | − 0.005 (0.138) | − 0.123 (0.129) | − 0.123 (0.129) | − 0.269 (0.142) | − 0.269 (0.142) |
English major | − 0.079 (0.148) | − 0.079 (0.148) | 0.065 (0.138) | 0.065 (0.138) | 0.037 (0.128) | 0.037 (0.128) | 0.214 (0.141) | 0.214 (0.141) |
Prior knowledge 1 | 0.202 (0.136) | 0.202 (0.136) | 0.220 (0.127) | 0.220 (0.127) | 0.312** (0.118) | 0.312** (0.118) | 0.186 (0.130) | 0.186 (0.130) |
Prior knowledge 2 | 0.020 (0.114) | 0.020 (0.114) | − 0.090 (0.106) | − 0.090 (0.106) | − 0.146 (0.099) | − 0.146 099) | − 0.052 (0.109) | − 0.052 (0.109) |
Prior knowledge 3 | 0.056 (0.106) | 0.056 (0.106) | − 0.022 (0.099) | − 0.022 (0.099) | − 0.170 (0.092) | − 0.170 (0.092) | − 0.025 (0.102) | − 0.025 (0.102) |
Constant | 3.477** (0.659) | 3.337** (0.667) | 4.327** (0.614) | 4.240** (0.622) | 2.605** (0.572) | 2.572** (0.579) | 3.169** (0.631) | 3.113** (0.639) |
N | 1540 | 1540 | 770 | 770 | 770 | 770 | 770 | 770 |
The regression coefficient indicated that the control variable school year had a negative effect only for human-likeness (b = − 0.135, p < 0.05). Students with higher school years (first- through fourth-year in university) perceived the agent as less human-like. Furthermore, research question 1 of the prior knowledge assessment had a positive effect on human-likeness (b = 0.312, p < 0.01). More prior knowledge of Australian history led to a higher human-likeness evaluation. Other control variables were not significant.
Cued Recall and recognition were tested using a series of logistic regression models. Similarly, models (1) and (3) used the enhanced gesture condition as the base condition, while models (2) and (4) used the average gesture condition as the base condition. In model (1), participants in the average gesture condition showed a lower ability for cued recall than those in the enhanced gesture condition (b = − 0.310, p < 0.05). Participants in the no-gesture condition had a lower possibility of cued recall than those in the enhanced gesture condition (b = − 0.245, p < 0.10), but the difference was not significant. In model (3) for recognition, participants in both the average gesture condition (b = − 0.200, p < 0.05) and the no-gesture condition (b = − 0.167, p < 0.05) had a significantly lower probability for recognition than those in the enhanced gesture condition. The results suggest that although enhanced gesture and average gesture are both effective in persona evaluation, only the enhanced gesture condition was effective in promoting the learning effect, while the average gesture failed to be effective.
School year positively affects recognition probability (b = 0.108, p < 0.01), and prior knowledge about Australia’s wildlife increases both recall (b = 0.309, p < 0.01) and recognition probability (b = 0.153, p < 0.01). Other factors were not significant. As the school year increases and students had more knowledge about Australia's wildlife, the learning effect was better. See Table
3 for the cued recall and recognition results.
Table 3
Logistic regression results for cued recall and recognition
Enhanced gesture | | 0.310* (0.134) | | 0.200* (0.084) |
Average gesture | − 0.310* (0.134) | | − 0.200* (0.084) | |
No gesture | − 0.245 (0.135) | 0.065 (0.140) | − 0.167* (0.084) | 0.033 (0.084) |
Age | − 0.004 (0.025) | − 0.004 (0.025) | 0.006 (0.015) | 0.006 (0.015) |
Year | 0.103 (0.058) | 0.103 (0.058) | 0.108** (0.036) | 0.108** (0.036) |
Gender | − 0.162 (0.128) | − 0.162 (0.128) | − 0.131 (0.078) | − 0.131 (0.078) |
English major | 0.214 (0.128) | 0.214 (0.128) | 0.135 (0.078) | 0.135 (0.078) |
Prior knowledge 1 | 0.084 (0.115) | 0.084 (0.115) | 0.049 (0.072) | 0.049 (0.072) |
Prior knowledge 2 | 0.123 (0.098) | 0.123 (0.098) | 0.071 (0.060) | 0.071 (0.060) |
Prior knowledge 3 | 0.309** (0.092) | 0.309** (0.092) | 0.153** (0.056) | 0.153** (0.056) |
Constant | − 2.230** (0.563) | − 2.541** (0.573) | − 0.931** (0.348) | − 1.131** (0.353) |
N | 3080 | 3080 | 3080 | 3080 |
Discussion
This study investigated whether and to what extent: (1) gesture frequency affected the agent’s perceived persona, and whether (2) gesture frequency during the presentation of propositional knowledge altered the cued recall and recognition of information. While previous research indicated that increasing gesture frequency significantly aided the recall of procedural information (Davis and Vincent
2019), this research examined the degree, if any, to which increasing gesture frequency benefited learners with regard to declarative knowledge.
RQ1: To what extent does gesture frequency (enhanced vs. average vs. no) affect foreign language users’ perception of agent persona when learning declarative knowledge?
The results showed that both gesture conditions, enhanced and average, significantly affected the participants’ perception of agent persona for all four subscales when compared against the control condition (no-gesture). These results support the claim that agents designed with high embodiment principles such as gestures can increase the social attributes of an agent, which prime the perception of a social relationship (Mayer and Dapra
2012). Although people typically anthropomorphize agents (Woo
2008), the social relationship can be disturbed if the agent fails to perform in a human-like manner (Reeves and Nass
1996). The significant persona ratings for both gesturing conditions might reflect the agents’ ability to meet the social expectations normally displayed in human-to-human interaction, since gestures are a normal part of interaction between people.
However, high embodiment may not fully explain these results because experiments designed to use all gesture types and embodiment have yielded varying results when measuring agent persona (Davis and Antonenko
2017; Davis and Vincent
2019). This may be because of the participants and type of knowledge being learned. In both of the experiments, foreign language users were learning information in English, with one focusing on grammar (Davis and Antonenko
2017) and the other on procedural knowledge (Davis and Vincent
2019). Although an agent using all gesture types was rated significantly higher in human-likeness and engagement (Davis and Antonenko
2017), the content focused on English grammar, which targets rule-based extractions that require time, experience, practice, and context to master (Larsen-Freeman,
2003). In another study, Davis and Vincent (
2019) focused on procedural knowledge of how lightning formed with foreign language users majoring in the humanities. The results showed that the average gesture condition was significant against the no-gesture condition in facilitation. No other conditions were significant across the other subscales or with any of the gesture conditions (enhanced, average, conversational, no-gesture). One reason for the limited findings of persona in procedural knowledge studies might be that the scientific vocabulary and information was more difficult, since procedural information requires listeners to break down information into concepts that must be logically ordered to achieve understanding of a particular goal (Willingham et al.
1989); this process with no verbal redundancy or illustrations may have consumed any attention that could be given to agent persona. However, this study on declarative knowledge about Australia may not have been as overwhelming for students in the humanities, because it allowed them more resources to analyze the agent’s persona.
Although it is highly possible that gestures do increase the social acceptance of the agent, other variables might modify the significance of agent persona depending on who the participants are and the difficulty of the information being learned. Further research should examine how an agent’s social cues, such as performing human-like gestures, affect the perception of an agent when measured with learner attributes and content complexity.
RQ2: To what extent does gesture frequency (enhanced vs. average vs. no-gesture) affect foreign language users’ learning outcomes of cued recall and recognition when learning declarative knowledge?
The data regarding cued recall and recognition showed similar yet contradictory results. In both cued recall and recognition, the enhanced gesture condition significantly outperformed the average gesture condition in both learning outcomes, but only scored significantly higher against the no-gesture condition in recognition. There were no other significant interactions, even though the enhanced gesture condition scored higher than the no-gesture condition (b = − 0.245, p < 0.10) in cued recall.
Generally, these results provide some conflicting evidence for the embodiment principle (Mayer and Dapra
2012) with pedagogical agents. On one hand, the enhanced gesture condition (high embodiment) was significant against the no-gesture condition (low embodiment) with recognition, which supports the embodiment principle. On the other hand, the enhanced gesture condition failed to reach significance against the no-gesture condition with cued recall (b = − 0.245, p < 0.10). The average gesture condition, which would be considered high embodiment, was not significant against the no-gesture condition in cued recall or recognition. However, the enhanced gesture condition (high embodiment) significantly outscored the average gesture condition (high embodiment) in both cued recall and recognition.
Although Mayer (
2014) suggests that high embodiment helps participants take a social stance and learn more deeply from an agent, which is commonly suggested with tests that measure transfer, meta-analyses support the view that embodiment features produce larger effect sizes when measuring transfer scores, but lower effect sizes when measuring retention-based assessments (Davis
2018; Wang et al.
2017). However, the contradictory findings between the enhanced gesture condition and the average gesture condition suggest that test type and instant assessment could play more of a role in generating higher scores than high embodiment priming a social relationship. Delayed assessments might show that embodiment features are not as significantly different as indicated by the immediate assessment.
Likewise, the two high embodiment conditions of enhanced gestures and average gestures produced different results in learning outcomes, which may indicate the concept of high or low embodiment might be too simple. In other words, embodiment level is not some binary measure that encompasses contexts or learning materials. Since gestures are considered another form of language production (Kendon
2004), and foreign language users must mentally decipher large amounts of information while listening compared to native speakers (Carrier
1999), the concept of high or low embodiment fails to cover this specific population that could require more assistance to learn more deeply. Because of these results, researchers and designers should ask themselves what “high embodiment” means in different contexts of age, culture, and language, and assess what frequency of social cues would be beneficial for that context.
In addition, these results do support previous research that enhanced gestures can significantly increase learning outcomes (Davis and Vincent
2019); but, this study offers the first evidence that enhanced gestures significantly outperform average gestures in learning outcomes. One possible suggestion might be that the research focused on declarative knowledge, while the other study focused on procedural knowledge. Two likely reasons for the significance found in this study are that the material could be seen as less intimidating, and the agent in the enhanced gesture condition performed more gestures to scaffold the understanding of the user. Therefore, participants in the enhanced gesture condition may have been able to create more mental representations that helped them to better organize and store the information (Brown
1995; Marzano
1997). Since the enhanced and average gesture conditions used gestures for the same key information, the other gestures present in the enhanced condition may have allowed the foreign language users more opportunity to organize the information. Whereas the average gesture condition may have provided fewer opportunities between key items of information to assist with comprehension and organizing the information.
Furthermore, following McCafferty’s (
2002) assessment that gestures help foreign language users to comprehend more information, the results from this study and the literature from multiple studies with pedagogical agents suggest two things: (1) the type of gestures and frequency may play a role in learning outcomes, and (2) the type of information being learned could be important for outcomes. Agents that use deictic or multiple gestures to teach grammar knowledge fail to produce any significant findings (Carlotto and Jaques
2016; Choi and Clark
2006; Davis and Antonenko
2017). Multiple gesture types and frequencies when learning procedural information can significantly increase learning outcomes, but only if the gesture frequency is enhanced (doubled) from the average frequency (Davis and Vincent
2019). When learning declarative knowledge, deictic gestures using arms (Yung and Paas
2015), multiple gestures with enhanced frequency (Davis and Vincent
2019), deictic gestures using the eyes (Fountoukidou et al.
2019), and the current study have shown significant findings against other and control conditions. It must be noted in the research using multiple gestures that those studies did not include any redundancy strategies such as keywords, which have been shown to significantly assist foreign language users with comprehension (Adesope and Nesbit
2012). Thus, this may explain why enhanced gesture frequency showed significant learning outcomes, but average gesture frequency failed to reach significance in studies for procedural knowledge (Davis and Vincent
2019) and the current study on declarative knowledge. Gesture frequency with multiple gestures and verbal redundancy will need to be examined further in future studies.
In addition, instructional designers should consider the needs of students who are studying in a second language, since higher education has seen an increase of international students studying in western countries. Although second language users are advanced enough to meet the test score criteria for admissions, this does not mean they possess the listening skills of their native speaking counterparts. Therefore, instructional designers in higher education need to consider nonverbal communication cues such as designing pedagogical agents to perform all gesture types at enhanced frequency. These strategies will be helpful for courses delivered solely online, or for courses that incorporate a flipped classroom model in which students are required to comprehend the information before attending class. Thus, course instructors and designers should consider their student population when designing online content, especially if classes include second language students.
Lastly, it is not clear why participants with increased knowledge on the topic of Australian wildlife performed better on learning measurements than the other topics. Of the 20 questions in cued recall and recognition, only four answers required the knowledge of animals. One suggestion might be that any interest in wildlife may include peripheral knowledge of habitats and other geographic information. However, there is no indication that wildlife questions statistically benefited a specific condition.
Theoretical implications
This research does provide evidence for the embodiment principle, but raises questions about the current classifications of embodiment. While previous software limited researcher and designer ability to create human-like features such as multiple gesture types, hence the reason for only deictic gestures, current software enables designers to create agents that are more similar to humans in form and function. Thus, if the agent is to prime the participant for a social relationship that is commonly found in human-to-human interaction, then agents should be designed to human expectations. In normal interaction, people use more than one gesture, and if someone used only a pointing gesture during conversation, it would be considered socially abnormal.
Therefore, the idea of embodiment should evolve with technology. High embodiment and low embodiment are too vague to accurately reflect the current capabilities available to researchers and designers. Thus, the concept of high embodiment should be modernized to human embodiment to reflect that the agent possesses all the capabilities found in humans, such as facial expressions, eye gaze, lip synchronization, and body sway; and since all people use multiple gestures, the agent performs all gesture types. Human embodiment would suggest all human capabilities are present in the agent design. Designs that lack some aspects of human capabilities could be labeled embodiment to signal that the agent has some human-like features and capacity, but lacks the presentation of the full range of human gesturing abilities. Embodiment would require researchers to detail which aspects of the design are not representative of human potential. For example, an agent performing only deictic and beat gestures with no facial expressions would be considered embodied because it lacks other gesture types and shows no emotions commonly presented by humans. For agents that only use lip synchronization with no other capabilities, they would be considered static as they are currently categorized in the literature. Finally, agents that possess no elements of embodiment would be considered pictures.
However, research into human embodiment needs to be conducted to understand what design features need to be adjusted due to context. While there is evidence that enhanced gesturing is beneficial for foreign language users, native speakers may find enhanced gesturing a distraction because they do not need extra assistance with comprehension. However, complicated materials or processes might require agents to gesture more with native-speaking participants. These aspects, as well as the learning of declarative and procedural knowledge, need to be examined further in future research.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.